Shaka of Carthage

SeaWolf_48 There were over forty something attempts on Hitlers life. This, among other things, was one of the reasons he lost touch with reality. When so many people try and kill you and fail, it isn't hard to believe that you have a "higher purpose" in life to fulfill. SeaWolf_48 and Santabear Regarding General Staff plans... Don't forget that in a wargame we have total control over our forces that back in WWII they could only dream of. Our intelligence reports are flawless (ie the enemy units within our "search" range), our sub-commanders do everything we order and on time (we move are own units), and we don't have to worry about the negative reprecussions of our decisions (we don't lose elections or get shot in a coup). So even though the General Staffs did make these plans, they were doing so with imperfect information... remember the saying that "no plan survives contact with the enemy"? [ May 12, 2003, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Agree to the change. Wait to 1.07 is "officially" announced, then change is official. Until then, if both sides are using "beta" 1.07, follow the "official" change.

One point I would like to make. When you are counting the "divisions" that were on the Eastern front and comparing them to the Western front "divisions" you are not counting the same things. Especially when you start counting the stuff that is in the Balkans. Alot of those "divisions" in Balkans and Western front were not front line divisions, but because the majority of the military was committed to the Eastern Front, the German military made do with what it had, even taking POW's and putting them into units on the Western Front. The Western Front didn't have the "cream" of the German Army. What it had were exhausted units from the Eastern Front that were doing R&R. Anti-Air (ie Flak) units had 1,000,000 people or so, but alot of those were women. Also, don't forget that the Germans and Russians when they fought each other were quite brutal to each other. Meant you very rarely surrendered if you had any other choice. Not so on the Western Front. So when you start using those numbers to justify how "close" the different fronts were, keep those things in mind.

88mm Terif has the right of it. Current method works for a major majority of the people. What you are asking is in effect creating "red tape". Extra paperwork, etc. The people who don't have a problem gain nothing from doing it. So they don't. For the one's that it becomes a problem for, they can use your topic or create a new one, copy the relevant postings in the oppononent forum, copy e-mails, whatever else they feel is necessary to present thier case.

KDG Very enlighting statement. We are after two different things and without getting into loss of playability lets look at what you are after. Good game, game mechanics... From this viewpoint, there are only two things wrong with SC. Air Power and Tanks. You see the Grey and Red combat as units relatively close in experience fighting each other. Makes sense that you would only want slight tweakings to occur because you don't see major problems other than the big two. I agree that your "tweak" of the combat model is better suited for what you want then the "enhancements" I am suggesting. Hmmmm... why don't you put your thoughts together, create a thread and link them to a post in the newbie thread. That way, there is a Playability option to compare against the Historically Responsible one?

You bring yours in a flask? What lightweights! My CAT can drink more than a flask carries. The book was real interesting. I think I even "borrowed" it permanently from the library it had such an effect on me. I can even visualize the cover.

I like the concept! It would be easy to put into a spreadsheet. The numbers appear to produce a valid result, but I leave it to someone else to debug that aspect of it. But I like it!

P Just a few questions. What is the reasoning behind you having a Engineer Division? The Tanks inside of the Mech Corp, Mech Army, Tank Div and Tank Corp; are they in tank battalions that are attached to these units or are they part of the divisions already inside of these units? If I understand this right, it is possible for a division to fight a Army (of 4 divisions)?

KDG I agree that this would be much easier if we had an editor, but we have to make do with what we have. Luckily, we can do the calc's with a spreadsheet. I don't believe that Infantry against Infantry, unless one side is "significantly" weaker than the other, can cause the defender to withdraw or destroy them. Even a 3 bar Army against a 0 bar Corp can't break the Corp (but it is killing 2 str pts for each 1 str pt it losses). Flipping the values gives me a closer representation of the losses each side should receive in a attrition war. What broke the deadlock was Armor. Tank against the Corp would be a 5:1 ratio. Even without the experience benefit, two (2) Armor attacks on a Corp (with a little help) will eliminate the Corp. Alot of this is based on how you interpet the historical events that occurred. Especially statements like "infantry cannot sustain the offensive". But closely examining how the different sides operated, I'll think you'll see that when any side in WWII wanted to "breakthru" the enemy lines, they brought of armor formations to reinforce the attackers and used reserve units in the rear to exploit the breakthru. Thats one of the reasons why I don't think bumping the factors or forcing a 1 str pt damage each attack solves the issue. I have a question for you... do you believe that the defense is stronger than the attack? If you say yes, then tell me how bumping the factors solves that?

'Cuse me for crashing this club... just consider it a amphib assault. #1 book. When I was a wee little lad, there was a book I read, that I can't remember the name or the author. Anyway it basically said that the "western" world emphasized shock combat (spear/sword and shield) while the "eastern" world emphasized missile (bow) combat. Got me to thinking, and that led me to my #2 choice. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Edward Gibbons It's a much easier read if you keep in mind Gibbon's background and the era he was in. Ok now, where's the bar?

Major contributor? ... Soviet Union.

P Of course I would be happy to offer suggestions.

KDG France would fall, just not in the way we are used to in SC. Germany would actually have to perform a blitzkrieg. Units not gaining experience... Lets establish some definitions. 0 bar ..... untrained 1 bar ..... trained 2 bar ..... experienced 3 bar ..... veteran 4 bar ..... elite You can use whatever names you feel more comfortable with. Following a optimum strategy, a unit could raise itself two bars. Can a untrained unit become elite? Nope. It could become experienced. But not if you follow the typical SC strategy of letting a unit get pounded down to 3 str points before you add 7 more to bring it back to strenght. No unit in the world, when it received that many replacements, will retain its experience. And by starting the Germans off with one (1) or two (2) bars of experience, by the time the East Front rolls along, you have just established the German superiority over the Russians in the early years. But the constant loss of experience has now given the Russians the ability to "bleed" the Germans experience away. Germans can counter with reserves, etc and now you have strategy, instead of the typical line them up and blow them away that occurs. I thought about bumping the soft defense factor by one (1). But look at the "other" defensive factors in SC combat. Entrenchment, terrain. They don't cause casulaties. They "bleed" off attacks and reduce defenders losses. What happened to the concept of "defense is inherently stronger than the offense"? What happened to the defender behind fortifications (ie entrenchments) causing the attacker losses since he can channel the attack into kill zones? Thats why the "flipping" works better for me, since it does not require the combat formulaes to be redone. 50-70% chance all units in combat lose 1 pt damage... Makes equal unit combat more bloody, but still doesn't solve the unequal unit combat favoring whoever has the most experience, which results in a defender in the city lossing while only causing 1str pt damage to the attacker.

KDG That is exactly the point. Based on the work done by arby and your corrections, here is the existing combat model. Current Model Two equal units fight each other, can cause same damage to each other regardless of who is attacker or defender. As the experience bar rises, the attacker gets lower losses and the defender losses increase. Thats fine for Greys and Reds when they start off with units with no experience. But turn them into Germans and Russians... Germans start off with more experience so when they attack they cause more damage and receive less. Eventually, they will receive NO damage and cause MASSIVE damage. This happens even when they are Greys and Reds, since the Grey units have gained experience from Poland and France. It just happens slower. I think its safe to say, that most of agree there is a problem with this. "Enhanced" Model Two equal units fight each other, the attacker receives more losses. As the experience bar rises, the attacker gets lower losses and the defender losses increase. Lets go straight to the Germans and Russians. Germans have more experience. Thats a given. They attack Russia, blow thru the units on the border. Suffer some losses, but not enough to require reinforcements (and dilute the experience). So keep going. Russians buy Corps and tries to slow the German advance. Russian player still losses units, but the German player at some point has to start reinforcing his units. Goodbye experience. Germans get all the way back to Moscow. But now the German units are understrength with 1 or 2 bars of experience or full strength with no experience. Here come the Siberians. Which method sounds more like the historical version of what happened on the Eastern Front? And the only change that needed to be made was to "flip" the values.

Valadictum Alternative to hexes? There are squares, pixels and zones. Thats about it for realistic options. Mainly because of programming logic, no one has been able to recreate the miniatures ability to move a specific distance, with the distance being affected by amount of variation from original direction. It comes down to hexes being the best and most accurate representation of the 2D model of a map and units on that map. Half-Strength units Well.... if we are going down this path, how about: Initial purchase of a "cadre" unit (X str pts). Ability to "reinforce" the unit one (1) str point based upon a production schedule. Example: Army/Corp........ 4pt cadre......... 1pt month.... 6 months Tank Group....... 2pt cadre......... 1pt month.... 8 months Subs............. 1pt cadre......... 1pt month.... 9 months Cruisers......... 1pt cadre......... 1pt e/o month.... 18 months

Lets take the "fleet" option, one step further. Allow a HQ to unload ("float") in a sea hex next to a coastal hex. Then treat the HQ as if it was on land. If the unit is in supply (or could go with just being next to the HQ) then the HQ can act as the "harbor" for transports. This also satisfies the need for a "mulberry" or artificial harbor. Floating HQ would be a representation of the amphib shipping necessary.

Soft Defense factor of a Corp is already at a value of one (1). Assuming you make another unit that is 1/2 that size, would give you a value of .5. SC unit concept would have to be totally redone to allow this. Command and Control within military circles generally agrees that at the level of command you hold, you can go one or two levels deeper, but no more. In other words, if you are in charge of Army Groups, you concern yourself with Armies and Corps. So when a wargame is designed, they usually end up following the same concept. Most boardgamers know this, but some of you computer gamers have never heard of it, so hear goes. In any hex based game, there is something called the "grain" of the hex. In SC, turn on your hex grid overlay. The "grain" runs north to south. Or if its easier for you, just remember that barrels stacked on top of each other are the grain. The optimum defensive line should follow the grain with one vacant hex between each defensive position. The advantages are: </font> Can only be attacked from two hexes at one time.</font>Most economical use of units in defense.</font>Unit cannot be surrounded.</font>If the line is broken, relatively easy to counterattack the breakthru unit.</font> While it is not the considered the worst, stacking the units adjacent to each other (known as "packing") is considered wasteful of units. Terrain of course will change the placement of your units, but instead of looking for a "cheap" unit to "pack" the line with, try following the grain and leaving a vacant hex between your units. Then use those extra units you have now freed up to form a second defensive line that can counterattack any enemy breaking the front line. There is more to it than this, but the above should give you a starting point. [ May 05, 2003, 03:01 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Liam Ok, I have a question for you. Have you ever wondered why certain nations thrived and others did not? Why did Europe as a region have so many kingdom/monarchies/empires/nations that ruled and other areas did not? Maybe that was too broad based... lets go with Spain, which you used in your example. Why did the Empire of Spain fail? Especially since it was one of the first to have access to the New World? [ May 04, 2003, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Because they are more than just the HQ's and Comm centers for the other units. In some respects, they are actually a "reserve" Corp. Those combat bonuses you receive from the HQ are not so much the "leadership" effect. They are really "reserve" units being sent to the Corp/Army as an enhancement of thier combat power.

Liam I agree that the Air unit is overpowered and dominates SC. But fixing it within the limitations I have imposed for "enhacenments" is not a easy thing. Give me a chance to post that enhancement, then tell me if you think it will work. But while we're waiting on that, why don't you ask me about the combat model "enhancements". Please, I am just dying to be able to explain why I am excitied about them. [ May 04, 2003, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

I got interested in WWII in a round about way, mainly from me trying to understand the "why" behind Vietnam. Thats another story, but just ask and I'll be happy to tell you. So here is how the WWII bit started for me and it was kinda hard to limit myself to just two entries. Numbers, Predictions, and War Trevor N. DuPuy, 1979. How to Make War James F. Dunnigan, 1989 Specific to WWII in general I have to go with these: The Collapse of the Third Republic 1969 The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich1960 Both are by William L. Shirer (Sorry, but I can't help myself.) One thing you have to remember when reading books is not to take everything at face value. Some books have a bias, some are written from one point of view, and others just repeat (slightly differently) what other books have alread said. Nothing illustrates this more than the information being released by those who have access to the Russian archives. Excellent books are the ones that have access to the historical documents and are written without bias. If you want to read one book about warfare though, go with: How to Make War James F. Dunnigan, 2003 (Fourth Edition)

My experiences with Storm Across Europe were a little different. But my platform was a PC, which at the time was much inferior to Amiga when it came to the graphics. Storm Across Europe appeared to be a copy of the boardgame Hitler's War. The PC interface was terrible, and the graphics for its day were acceptable. When Clash of Steel came out, Storm Across Europe went into the trash.

Liam Upgrade issue for jets is the same that happens when you achieve Heavy Tank tech advances. We just have to suspend belief and imagine that whatever we think is occuring happens when that tech advance occurs. Best solution I have heard so far is that any new units you purchase have that current tech advance, while any "older" unit has to pay a upgrade fee.

:cool:

Beautiful piece of work. Even the "grognards" should read it.